Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Gay marriage

1…6791112…39

Comments

  • #242
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    ClioV6 wrote: »
    Oh ffs, come on.

    that's logic.
    Who's logic?

    What if i don't want kids? Should i kill myself now seeing as my life suddenly has no purpose?


  • #243
    projectmayhem
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,421 ✭✭✭projectmayhem


    ClioV6 wrote: »
    Ok, assuming homosexual couples can raise a child correctly despite it either being a father/father or mother/mother relationship..

    Father/father or mother/mother relationships are no better or worse then single-parent families or young parents that are so prevalent today. The fact that they have to make a decisive concious decision to raise a child would probably put them ahead of any other couple out there these days because it can never be a "mistake". The family would have had to plan their finances etc. much more strictly just to gain adoption rights, so the child wouldn't be living in squalor.
    ClioV6 wrote: »
    Do you not think the child will be subject to quite a fair bit of bullying and harrasment when the kids in school find out s/he has 2 mothers/2 fathers ?

    Yes, they will be. Although, I was born into a typical mother/father two-car suburban family and I got a fair bit of bullying and harassment in school. That's what happens in school... regardless of situations.


  • #244
    SV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,533 ✭✭✭SV


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Actually, Dave! already reference that in an earlier post.

    Well..that doesn't really make any sense.

    comparing something that is ridiculed by millions (being gay) to someone who's mother had passed away..isn't comparable.
    projectmayhem wrote: »



    Yes, they will be. Although, I was born into a typical mother/father two-car suburban family and I got a fair bit of bullying and harassment in school. That's what happens in school... regardless of situations.

    So did I, however it wasn't forced upon me like it would be with them.

    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Who's logic?

    What if i don't want kids? Should i kill myself now seeing as my life suddenly has no purpose?


    I don't think you should kill yourself, good job accepting your life has no purpose though.


  • #245
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    ClioV6 wrote: »
    Not able to answer it so try and ridicule it..hmm

    Good man yourself.

    I'm pointing out that children are savages and will torment another child for absolutely anything, making your concern artificial and pointless.

    I thought it would have been blindingly obvious.


  • #246
    CreepingDeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,015 ✭✭✭CreepingDeath


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    I don't think you even know what science is.

    I don't think you understood it.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    The answer is no.

    Heterosexuality is natural.
    Homosexuality is basically a dysfunction of human behaviour.

    Natural selection / evolution took a wrong turn and because gays tend not to reproduce the gay genetic lineage should've dead-ended.

    Gay marriage is fruitless in the bigger picture, it serves no purpose other than to humour potential voters.
    In terms of evolution / natural selection, it is a joke.

    So, I don't see the point in expanding the definition of a heterosexual institution.

    I for one couldn't care less about "the bigger picture."

    I don't want kids - so should I not be allowed marry somebody I love just because I won't be contributing to this "bigger picture"?

    If two people, regardless of their sexual orientation and whether they want kids, really love each other, then their marriage does serve a purpose.


  • #248
    projectmayhem
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,421 ✭✭✭projectmayhem


    ClioV6 wrote: »
    So did I, however it wasn't forced upon me like it would be with them.

    School bullying isn't going to be "forced upon" some kid at any stage. In fairness, a gay couple would be well aware of the school situation, and would probably accommodate this and explain this stuff to the kid(s). Most other kids in the playground probably won't really understand anyway, and just bully each other over the usual crap (wearing glasses, hair colour, eye colour, shoes... whatever).


  • #249
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    ClioV6 wrote: »
    Well..that doesn't really make any sense.

    comparing something that is ridiculed by millions (being gay) to someone who's mother had passed away..isn't comparable.

    I don't think you should kill yourself, good job accepting your life has no purpose though.

    You're right, gay people are ridiculed by millions, i'm sure you're one of them.

    Fat people are riciduled by millions
    Small people are ridiculed by millions
    People with learning difficulties are ridiculed by millions
    Black people are ridiculed by millions

    See what i'm getting at here?

    As other people have mentioned, children a bullied, believe it or not, the kind of child that will bully another child with same sex parents will probably be the offspring of someone with views such as yourself. Go figure.


  • #250
    SV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,533 ✭✭✭SV


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    You're right, gay people are ridiculed by millions, i'm sure you're one of them.

    Fat people are riciduled by millions
    Small people are ridiculed by millions
    People with learning difficulties are ridiculed by millions
    Black people are ridiculed by millions

    See what i'm getting at here?

    As other people have mentioned, children a bullied, believe it or not, the kind of child that will bully another child with same sex parents will probably be the offspring of someone with views such as yourself. Go figure.

    jaysus no, I've no problem with gay people, I just ****ing hate the gay lads who act like women. Pity nearly all of them I come across happen to act that way...


  • #251
    ninty9er
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,351 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    ClioV6 wrote: »
    Do you not think the child will be subject to quite a fair bit of bullying and harrasment when the kids in school find out s/he has 2 mothers/2 fathers ?
    You would think so wouldn't you. It's not the case however. Kids are more open to these things. They have no former opinion on the issue and society evolves more progressively for all that. This is why 4 year olds don't have as much of an issue with disabled people, foreigners, or the intellectually disabled. They interact with these groups in the classroom, so therefore put a human value on the behaviour, which is what a lot of people here are failing to see.

    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    The answer is no.

    Heterosexuality is natural.
    Homosexuality is basically a dysfunction of human behaviour.
    This
    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Hmmm, i see *scratches chin*. And what, may i ask, are you basing this on?
    projectmayhem wrote: »
    Father/father or mother/mother relationships are no better or worse then single-parent families or young parents that are so prevalent today. The fact that they have to make a decisive concious decision to raise a child would probably put them ahead of any other couple out there these days because it can never be a "mistake". The family would have had to plan their finances etc. much more strictly just to gain adoption rights, so the child wouldn't be living in squalor.
    +1

    Has nobody ever seen 3 Men and a Baby
    :D:D:D

    Edit:
    ClioV6 wrote: »
    jaysus no, I've no problem with gay people, I just ****ing hate the gay lads who act like women. Pity nearly all of them I come across happen to act that way...

    Maybe they're just the ones you notice. Ever thought of that. There's plenty of non-tight haired hot lesbians out there too...I even had a go on converting one one drunken evening :D

    Also I'm failing to see where man and woman is explicit in the constitutional definition of marriage. It's there with regard to the homemaker woman in article 41 but nothing about marriage. This could easily be done without referendum.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    jaffa20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,624 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    ClioV6 wrote: »
    jaysus no, I've no problem with gay people, I just ****ing hate the gay lads who act like women. Pity nearly all of them I come across happen to act that way...

    Cos they're the only ones you see as stereotypically gay. The others you would just see as any straight guy would be like and wouldn't know the difference but just think how that guy probably has a boyfriend who he can't legally make a commitment to because he's denied that basic human right in the eyes of the law.

    Anyway, this thread has gone to the pits. Creepingdeath's comments are illogical. He makes out that gay people are inferior because we can't have children. Actually, my sperm is perfectly fine. I just don't swing that way.

    Spot the difference?


  • #253
    CreepingDeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,015 ✭✭✭CreepingDeath


    Zillah wrote: »
    Ok, first of all, homosexuality exists in many species other than humans, including several primate species and dolphins. So it's not as "unnatural" as you might think. Its obviously a product of nature, unless you're proposing it's a result of a chemical spill or something?

    Oh well... if the monkeys and dolphins do it.. that puts a different perspective on things :rolleyes:
    I should start the campaign to be allow people to live in treehouses in Phoneix Park and reduce the tax on bananas.

    Natural implies productive and healthy behaviour.
    Zillah wrote: »
    We as a society do not give or deny fundamental human rights based on how useful we think those people are, or how evolutionarily fit we think they are. You're essentially a fascist. A fascist with a very poor understanding of evolution at that.

    There's an awful lot of this ridiculous "fundamental human rights" being mentioned. There's nothing stopping gays from spending their entire lives together. You have that right already.

    What you're demanding is state and societies acceptance and approval.
    That's completely and utterly different.


  • #254
    komodosp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,657 ✭✭✭komodosp


    Of course gay marriage should be legalised...

    It's unnatural? So f***ing what! We've been doing unnatural things for years, between vaccinations, and building houses and cooking our meat, flying on aeroplanes, etc. WHo cares if it's unnatural?
    Besides, who says it even is unnatural? OK, it doesn't produce children, but neither does taking a dump, and that's perfectly natural. And we are hardly in a crisis of our population being too low! (not that most gay people would go off and marry straight just because they couldn't marry gay, and produce the children we needed)

    The definition of marriage is it's between a man and a woman? "Always has been"? That's as bad as saying it's unnatural. For one thing, it's the linguists who decide definitions, and I don't think something as fundamental as civil rights should be left to them (with all due respect). If your church says it's the definition, then unless you're trying to convert the rest of us to your religion, don't expect the rest of us to follow your definitions. If your consitution says it is, then it can be changed to get rid of outmoded beliefs. Just because something always has been, doesn't mean it should be.
    Maybe the government should give free (updated) dictionaries to all when they legalise gay marriage.

    It'll devalue the state of marriage between a man and woman? How so? And it will increase the value of marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, so it should balance out. And as it's been said earlier, celebrities have been devaluing heterosexual marriage for decades. And do you really feel under such that you feel your marriage will be devalued because a gay couple could get married? And you want to prevent them from doing so to protect that bit of value? If so, I question your sanity, or sense of moral superiority, as that's one of the most selfish things I've heard!

    And I can't understand how one could possibly think that marriage between a man and a woman could be more valuable just because it's a man and a woman? That's like saying, "gay couples don't really love each other as much as we do".


  • #255
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    Oh well... if the monkeys and dolphins do it.. that puts a different perspective on things :rolleyes:

    It does really. You claimed it was unnatural. Homosexuality exists in many places in nature. Therefore you are, yet again, completely wrong.

    Its actually funny how wrong you are. First you say homosexuality can be learned from environment, you were wrong. Then you claim its genetic and therefore an unnatural abberation, you were wrong. Now you're claiming that "natural" doesn't mean natural at all but actually means "productive and healthy".

    You're like an angry ping pong ball bouncing around the room desperately looking for a way to rationalise what is ultimately a baseless, irrational prejudice.
    Natural implies productive and healthy behaviour.

    There's a great many healthy and productive homosexuals. Sure they're not producing children but then again all sorts of people aren't producing children and we're not denying them the right to marry.
    There's an awful lot of this ridiculous "fundamental human rights" being mentioned. There's nothing stopping gays from spending their entire lives together. You have that right already.

    You think fundamental human rights are ridiculous? Please think about your response. If the answer is yes then you're telling me its ok to steal from you, imprison you and do pretty much anything I like because your rights are ridiculous.
    What you're demanding is state and societies acceptance and approval.
    That's completely and utterly different.

    Yes, demanding equality is completely different to accepting injustice, I'm glad you comprehend the difference.


  • #256
    Cunny-Funt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,748 ✭✭✭Cunny-Funt


    When do you think Ireland would have a vote on this anyway? Seems pretty clear most Irish people aint stuck in the dark ages.


  • #257
    projectmayhem
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,421 ✭✭✭projectmayhem


    Cunny-Funt wrote: »
    When do you think Ireland would have a vote on this anyway? Seems pretty clear most Irish people aint stuck in the dark ages.

    This forum represents younger voters 18-35 age. I would imagine most people outside of this category have more unliberal views on the matter


  • #258
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    The answer is no.

    Heterosexuality is natural.
    Homosexuality is basically a dysfunction of human behaviour.

    Natural selection / evolution took a wrong turn and because gays tend not to reproduce the gay genetic lineage should've dead-ended.

    Gay marriage is fruitless in the bigger picture, it serves no purpose other than to humour potential voters.
    In terms of evolution / natural selection, it is a joke.

    So, I don't see the point in expanding the definition of a heterosexual institution.

    And if you refute the genetic line, then that means you think there's environmental factors that contribute to homosexuality, in which case gays should not be able to adopt.

    So you've finally dropped the s/hite about your objections being based on taxes etc.....
    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    Those that don't get naturally deselected from the gene pool cos they don't pass their genes on.

    Things are rather more complicated than that, otherwise it wouldnt keep cropping up, would it.....
    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    Natural implies productive and healthy behaviour..

    So naturally theres no gay artists, archetects, writers or poets. And none whatsoever in the performing arts.


  • #259
    SeekUp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,072 ✭✭✭SeekUp


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Do you wonder why the word "partnership" is included in "civil partnership"? I just don't see what there isn't to be happy about with that. Some states aren't even considering to go that far at all.

    If that were the label on the union itself, whether it be straight or gay, I would absolutely be happy with it. But I fail to see why my heterosexual marriage would be any better than a homosexual marriage, or above it in the eyes of the law.
    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    There's an awful lot of this ridiculous "fundamental human rights" being mentioned. There's nothing stopping gays from spending their entire lives together. You have that right already.

    What you're demanding is state and societies acceptance and approval.
    That's completely and utterly different.

    Yes, you're right. It is different. And I think we should demand acceptance by the state and by society. We should demand to be treated equally regardless of what we look like, what we have between our legs, or what we do under the sheets (or in a public bathroom. Some people like that stuff). If an employer doesn't hire someone - or fires someone - because they're gay, it's discrimination. If we don't marry gay people because they're gay, it's discrimination.

    It's really like bringing homemade chocolate chip cookies to class. It's not right to hand out the amazing moist cookies to most kids and then give the leftover regular sugar cookies for to the weird smelly kids. If everyone doesn't get the same thing, then don't bring anything at all.

    But I like cookies.


  • #260
    dny123456
    Closed Accounts Posts: 431 ✭✭dny123456


    Cunny-Funt wrote: »
    When do you think Ireland would have a vote on this anyway? Seems pretty clear most Irish people aint stuck in the dark ages.

    The poll seems to indicate roughly 80/20 in favour of sanity... which is very hopeful. Although probably a fairly young sample population which might explain it.

    There will always be a few very vocal religious nuts though.


  • #261
    CreepingDeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,015 ✭✭✭CreepingDeath


    Zillah wrote: »
    It does really. You claimed it was unnatural. Homosexuality exists in many places in nature. Therefore you are, yet again, completely wrong.

    You talk of fundamental human rights and bring in some monkeys and dolphins to back your arguments. :rolleyes:
    Zillah wrote: »
    Its actually funny how wrong you are. First you say homosexuality can be learned from environment, you were wrong. Then you claim its genetic and therefore an unnatural abberation, you were wrong. Now you're claiming that "natural" doesn't mean natural at all but actually means "productive and healthy".

    If a child is brought up by a gay couple they will learn all about relationships between gays but miss out on seeing how a heterosexual relationship works. That's bound to skew their perceptions.
    Sure children generally keep the same religion as their parents, they are more likely to smoke if the parents smoke... a childs parents/guardians have a huge psychological impact on their development.
    There's a difference between tolerating/accepting homosexually, and encouraging or promoting it.
    Zillah wrote: »
    There's a great many healthy and productive homosexuals. Sure they're not producing children but then again all sorts of people aren't producing children and we're not denying them the right to marry.

    Yes, but we're not talking about homosexuals singular.
    We're talking about changing an institution which has been in place for thousands of years.
    And despite some vague comments, I'm far from religious, the complete opposite in fact.
    Zillah wrote: »
    You think fundamental human rights are ridiculous? Please think about your response. If the answer is yes then you're telling me its ok to steal from you, imprison you and do pretty much anything I like because your rights are ridiculous.

    And where do you get this idea that gay marriage is a fundamental human right ? Equality has it's limits, based on logic.

    Next thing, you'll want to see physically handicapped people playing for Manchester United or something. Yeah, lets include everyone in everything and not take anything seriously anymore. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    dny123456 wrote: »
    The poll seems to indicate roughly 80/20 in favour of sanity... which is very hopeful. Although probably a fairly young sample population which might explain it.

    There will always be a few very vocal religious nuts though.

    It's amazing that how when people disagree with you, you call them "nuts". It's rather convenient isn't it?


  • #263
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's amazing that how when people disagree with you, you call them "nuts". It's rather convenient isn't it?
    Personally, when people usually disagree with me on something that isn't very clear cut, i won't call them a nut, i'll usually agree to disagree and move on from there.

    If someone says something is wrong for no real reason other than their own ignorant and bigoted idealism then i'll call them a nut, actually no, i'll call them a retard.


  • #264
    CreepingDeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,015 ✭✭✭CreepingDeath


    dny123456 wrote: »
    The poll seems to indicate roughly 80/20 in favour of sanity... which is very hopeful. Although probably a fairly young sample population which might explain it.

    There will always be a few very vocal religious nuts though.

    Somebody re-registered cos they hadn't got the courage to post under their regular username ?

    Who brought religion into any part of this thread ?
    Sounds to me like you are completely and utterly intolerant of religious beliefs. Wow, that's a bit hypocritical of you, isn't it ?

    By the way, I've had no part of religion since my confirmation about 20+ years ago.

    What always comes out of these discussions is the absolute intolerance of many minority groups to accept other peoples opinions.
    They become fantically aggressive to get acceptance, beating people with
    claimed rules or laws or "human rights".


  • #265
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    You talk of fundamental human rights and bring in some monkeys and dolphins to back your arguments. :rolleyes:

    Do try to keep up. You brought natural versus unnatural into the discussion, that's what the animals were a reference to. I'll find this very tiring if I have to think for both of us.
    If a child is brought up by a gay couple they will learn all about relationships between gays but miss out on seeing how a heterosexual relationship works. That's bound to skew their perceptions.

    People learn about relationships from many places, not just their parents. Friends, family (that includes extended family), television, films, music and yes, from their own adventures into such realms.
    Sure children generally keep the same religion as their parents, they are more likely to smoke if the parents smoke... a childs parents/guardians have a huge psychological impact on their development.
    There's a difference between tolerating/accepting homosexually, and encouraging or promoting it.

    You see we've already been through this, so you're either being deliberately dense or just not able to keep up. Studies have shown that sexuality is defined from birth, it cannot be learned, changed or encouraged, it is what it is. A straight child cannot go gay no matter how much time they spend with queers.
    Yes, but we're not talking about homosexuals singular.
    We're talking about changing an institution which has been in place for thousands of years.

    Nothing needs to change about straight marriage. Anyway, marriage has always been changing, women aren't property any more, blacks can marry whites and a father doesn't choose his daughter's husband.
    And despite some vague comments, I'm far from religious, the complete opposite in fact.

    I've said nothing about your religious beliefs or lack thereof, I've focussed entirely on your atrociously ignorant opinions.
    And where do you get this idea that gay marriage is a fundamental human right ? Equality has it's limits, based on logic.

    Marriage is a right, for everyone. Who decides those limits, you? Based on what, your apallingly illogical opinions?
    Next thing, you'll want to see physically handicapped people playing for Manchester United or something. Yeah, lets include everyone in everything and not take anything seriously anymore. :rolleyes:

    The very fact that you'd equate the privilege of playing for a private football team and the right to marraige shows you don't think very well.


  • #266
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    See how eye rolly I am!?


  • #267
    komodosp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,657 ✭✭✭komodosp


    The point is, there are different types of opinions. If you disagreed on "do you like gay weddings" or "would you marry someone of the same sex?" or something, then you'd have a fair enough point to disagree.

    But this is a question that affects other people, not you. Your negative opinion isn't really valid, because you want to deny people a right that comes at no expense to you or anyone else. So you are perfectly entitled to not like gay marriage, but it's the old story, if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex!

    If 3,999,998 people in this country hate gay marriage, and just two gay people want to get married (assuming there's exactly 4 million people here), they should still be allowed.

    I would question whether there should be a vote on this, because it's something that doesn't affect the vast majority of would-be voters. It's like when children don't want someone else to play with their toy, even though they are not using it themselves. It would be like people voting on how I should decorate my kitchen.


  • #268
    komodosp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,657 ✭✭✭komodosp


    And where do you get this idea that gay marriage is a fundamental human right ? Equality has it's limits, based on logic.
    Marriage is a right, for everyone who can find someone who'll marry them. At least it should be. I would like to see your logic on this particular limit. And no matter how old an institution is, if it's wrong, it should be changed. Slavery was an institution in many countries for a long time, and the oppression of women still is. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.
    Next thing, you'll want to see physically handicapped people playing for Manchester United or something. Yeah, lets include everyone in everything and not take anything seriously anymore.
    That's completely different. Manchester United are free to choose whoever they want for their football team. However, a group including physically handicapped people should be free to form a football club of their own.
    Judging by the comments in your post, it looks like you look down on gay people.


  • #269
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    komodosp wrote: »
    Judging by the comments in your post, it looks like you look down on gay people.

    Or he/she is a closet homosexual :)


  • #270
    jaffa20
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,624 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    komodosp wrote: »
    The point is, there are different types of opinions. If you disagreed on "do you like gay weddings" or "would you marry someone of the same sex?" or something, then you'd have a fair enough point to disagree.

    But this is a question that affects other people, not you. Your negative opinion isn't really valid, because you want to deny people a right that comes at no expense to you or anyone else. So you are perfectly entitled to not like gay marriage, but it's the old story, if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex!

    If 3,999,998 people in this country hate gay marriage, and just two gay people want to get married (assuming there's exactly 4 million people here), they should still be allowed.

    I would question whether there should be a vote on this, because it's something that doesn't affect the vast majority of would-be voters. It's like when children don't want someone else to play with their toy, even though they are not using it themselves. It would be like people voting on how I should decorate my kitchen.

    +1

    I completely agree with this. It shouldn't be something that be put to the vote. It's not something that will directly affect the lives of voters in Ireland. It's a basic human right that should be implemented without the consent of opinionated people with no understanding of what it's like to be a part of the lgbt community.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    ninty9er
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,351 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    jaffa20 wrote: »
    +1

    I completely agree with this. It shouldn't be something that be put to the vote. It's not something that will directly affect the lives of voters in Ireland. It's a basic human right that should be implemented without the consent of opinionated people with no understanding of what it's like to be a part of the lgbt community.


    The majority of constitutional amendments don't directly affect all voters. The right to life of the unborn doesn't affect anyone who can vote.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement